MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286778172 · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0580-z

What is a clinical pathway? Refinement of an operational definition to identify clinical pathway studies for a Cochrane systematic review

2016· review· en· W2286778172 on OpenAlexaff
Adegboyega Lawal, Thomas Rotter, Leigh Kinsman, Andreas Machotta, Ulrich Ronellenfitsch, Shannon D. Scott, Donna Goodridge, Christopher Plishka, Gary Groot

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOperationalizationChecklistConceptualizationClinical pathwayHealth careMultidisciplinary approachIntervention (counseling)Systematic reviewGuidelineHealth services researchProtocol (science)Quality (philosophy)MEDLINEProcess managementAlternative medicineNursingComputer sciencePublic healthPathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical pathways (CPWs) are a common component in the quest to improve the quality of health. CPWs are used to reduce variation, improve quality of care, and maximize the outcomes for specific groups of patients. An ongoing challenge is the operationalization of a definition of CPW in healthcare. This may be attributable to both the differences in definition and a lack of conceptualization in the field of clinical pathways. This correspondence article describes a process of refinement of an operational definition for CPW research and proposes an operational definition for the future syntheses of CPWs literature. Following the approach proposed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8(1):31, 2010) and Wieland et al. (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 17(2):50, 2011), we used a four-stage process to generate a five criteria checklist for the definition of CPWs. We refined the operational definition, through consensus, merging two of the checklist's criteria, leading to a more inclusive criterion for accommodating CPW studies conducted in various healthcare settings. The following four criteria for CPW operational definition, derived from the refinement process described above, are (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other 'inventory of actions' (i.e. the intervention had time-frames or criteria-based progression); and (4) the intervention aimed to standardize care for a specific population. An intervention meeting all four criteria was considered to be a CPW. The development of operational definitions for complex interventions is a useful approach to appraise and synthesize evidence for policy development and quality improvement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.323
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.602
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3230.602
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.027
Bibliometrics0.0980.062
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0190.025
Open science0.0090.013
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.742
GPT teacher head0.678
Teacher spread0.064 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations280
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207